DOCSLIB.ORG

An Investigation Into Salix Fragilis and the Subsequent Environmental Impacts of Its Introduction to Tasmania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Investigation Into Salix Fragilis and the Subsequent Environmental Impacts of Its Introduction to Tasmania SCIENCE INVESTIGATION Investigation Report Emily Walter & Caitlin Marr Mrs Omant AN INVESTIGATION INTO Project Based Learning – STEM 20th September 2020 SALIX FRAGILIS AND THE 9,805 words SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ITS INTRODUCTION TO THE TASMANIAN LANDSCAPE TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 AIM ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 THEORY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 What Are WIllows? ....................................................................................................................................... 3 The effect of willows on Tasmanian Riparian Habitats .............................................................................. 5 Effect on Astacopsis gouldi and Other Animals .......................................................................................... 9 Effect on Platypus population .................................................................................................................... 12 How willows spread.................................................................................................................................... 13 Removal methods........................................................................................................................................ 13 Previous removal in tasmania .................................................................................................................... 15 THE EXPERIMENT .................................................................................................................................. 17 HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................................................................................................... 18 VARIABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 MATERIALS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 METHOD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Procedure of Experiment ........................................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion of Experiment .......................................................................................................................... 34 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................... 35 PART TWO .................................................................................................................................................... 36 AIM .................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 THEORY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 36 The Experiment ........................................................................................................................................... 36 Dissolved Oxygen ........................................................................................................................................ 37 Turbidity ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 ph .................................................................................................................................................................. 40 salinity.......................................................................................................................................................... 40 HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................................................................................................... 41 VARIABLES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 41 MATERIALS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 42 METHOD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Dissolved oxygen: ....................................................................................................................................... 44 Turbidity: ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 1 pH: ................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Salinity: ........................................................................................................................................................ 47 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Preparation of Experiment ......................................................................................................................... 48 Procedure of Experiment ........................................................................................................................... 49 Conclusion of Experiment .......................................................................................................................... 51 Taking It Further ......................................................................................................................................... 53 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................... 53 OVERALL CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 54 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 55 LOGBOOK ...................................................................................................................................................... 57 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 60 2 PART ONE AIM To investigate and analyse how willow cuttings grow in both soil and water, in order to aid our investigation into how willows affect the Tasmanian environment. THEORY WHAT ARE WILLOWS? Willows are a species of tree of the genus Salix (family Salicaceae). The plant originates from northern China but is now found widely throughout the northern hemisphere. Willows generally inhabit temperate areas that provide enough moisture and direct sunlight, making them often found next to lakes and ponds. The plants are fond of retentive soils, allowing the ground and surrounding areas to remain damp throughout the seasons. The species is Figure 1.1.1 A catkin on a crack willow characterised by its alternate long narrow leaves tree. and catkins. Catkins are slim, cylindrical clusters of flowers that are arranged closely along a central drooping stem. These catkins allow the female flowers to be pollinated easily, as the pollen from the male flowers is blown by the wind and onto the flowers. Once the seeds have developed, they are dispersed by the wind. The trees are either male or female, and the seed have long, silky hairs. There are around 400 species of willow worldwide. Willows are divided into 2 categories – tree willows and shrub willows. Tree willows grow large with on or more trunks and can typically reach 10-30 meters in height. They have brittle and fragile branches that break off easily. Shrub willows, otherwise known as sallows, vary from shrubs and bushes to small trees. 3 They normally have multiple stems and twigs which are harder to break than the tree willows. Willows are thought to have arrived in Tasmania in the early 19th century. An interesting origin story surrounds the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin Native Trees and Shrubs
    Wisconsin Native Trees and Shrubs Mature Moisture Light Height Common Name Scientific Name Preferences Exposure (feet) Notes Wildlife Grouse, deer, Full sun - Fragrant moose,porcupine, game Balsam fir Abies balsamea wm,m Full Shade 40 - 75 Evergreen birds, mice Game birds, squirrel, Full sun - chipmunk, beaver, Red Maple Acer rubrum w,wm,m Part sun 40 - 60 Fast growing deer,bear Fast growing, Songbirds, deer, Full sun - weak wood, racoon,waterfowl, Silver Maple Acer saccharinum w,wm Part sun 75 - 100 shallow roots squirrel Soil stablizer, neutral to acid Full sun - conditions, fixes Rabbit,moose,muskrat, Specled alder Alnus incana w,wm Part sun 15 - 30 nitrogen grouse, beaver Whiteflowers - April - May An Game Amelanchier Full sun - excellent birds,grouse,skunk,fox, Serviceberry arborea wm,m,dm,d Full Shade 20 -30 landscape tree racoon White flowers - May Orange fall Full sun - color Excellent Birds,bear,squirrel,chipm Smooth juneberry Amelanchier laevis wm,m,dm,d Full Shade 20 - 30 landscape plant unk,deer,moose Attractive white flower clusters in American May & bright Late winter food for Highbush Full sun - orange fruits in songbirds, pheasant, wild Viburnum trilobum cranberry wm,m Part sun 10 - 13' fall turkey, whitetail deer Blue flowers, May - August; takes 2-3 yrs for transplants to mature;does Amorpha very well on dry Leadplant canescens m,dm,d Full sun 1-3 sandy sites Butterflies and Bees Violet flowers - May - June Best Indigobush; False Full sun - grown in thicket - indigo Amorpha fruticosa w,wm,m Full Shade 6 - 12 not very
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Name Common Name
    Approved Approved & as a eligible to Not eligible to Approved as Frontage fulfill other fulfill other Type of plant a Street Tree Tree standards standards Heritage Tree Tree Heritage Species Botanical Name Common name Native Abelia x grandiflora Glossy Abelia Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes White Forsytha; Korean Abeliophyllum distichum Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Abelialeaf Acanthropanax Fiveleaf Aralia Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes sieboldianus Acer ginnala Amur Maple Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Aesculus parviflora Bottlebrush Buckeye Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Aesculus pavia Red Buckeye Shrub, Deciduous No No Yes Yes Alnus incana ssp. rugosa Speckled Alder Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Alnus serrulata Hazel Alder Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Amelanchier humilis Low Serviceberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Amelanchier stolonifera Running Serviceberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes False Indigo Bush; Amorpha fruticosa Desert False Indigo; Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No No Not eligible Bastard Indigo Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Aronia melanocarpa Black Chokeberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Aronia prunifolia Purple Chokeberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Groundsel-Bush; Eastern Baccharis halimifolia Shrub, Deciduous No No Yes Yes Baccharis Summer Cypress; Bassia scoparia Shrub, Deciduous No No No Yes Burning-Bush Berberis canadensis American Barberry Shrub, Deciduous Yes No No Yes Common Barberry; Berberis vulgaris Shrub, Deciduous No No No No Not eligible European Barberry Betula pumila
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivated Willows Would Not Be Appropriate Without Mention of the ‘WEEPING WILLOW’
    Alexander Robertson Notes on willows cultivated in Scotland and a few sketches of willows sampled from my clonal collection HISTORICAL NOTES Since the knowledge of willows is of great antiquity, it is with the ancient Greeks and Romans we shall begin, for among these people numerous written records remain. The growth habit, ecology, cultivation and utilization of willows was well— understood by Theophrastus, Ovid, Herodotus, Pliny and Dioscorides. Virgil was also quite familiar with willow, e.g. Damoetas complains that: “Galatea, saucy girl, pelts me with apples and then runs off to the willows”. ECLOGIJE III and of foraging bees: “Far and wide they feed on arbutus, pale-green willows, on cassia and ruddy crocus .. .“ GEORGICS IV Theophrastus of Eresos (370—285 B.C.) discussed many aspects of willows throughout his Enquiry into Plants including habitats, wood quality, coppicing and a variety of uses. Willows, according to Theophrastus are lovers of wet places and marshes. But he also notes certain amphibious traits of willows growing in mountains and plains. To Theophrastus they appeared to possess no fruits and quite adequately reproduced themselves from roots, were tolerant to flooding and frequent coppicing. “Even willows grow old and when they are cut, no matter at what height, they shoot up again.” He described the wood as cold, tough, light and resilient—qualities which made it useful for a variety of purposes, especially shields. Such were the diverse virtues of willow that he suggested introducing it for plant husbandry. Theophrastus noted there were many different kinds of willows; three of the best known being black willow (Salix fragilis), white willow (S.
    [Show full text]
  • Salix L.) in the European Alps
    diversity Review The Evolutionary History, Diversity, and Ecology of Willows (Salix L.) in the European Alps Natascha D. Wagner 1 , Li He 2 and Elvira Hörandl 1,* 1 Department of Systematics, Biodiversity and Evolution of Plants (with Herbarium), University of Goettingen, Untere Karspüle 2, 37073 Göttingen, Germany; [email protected] 2 College of Forestry, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The genus Salix (willows), with 33 species, represents the most diverse genus of woody plants in the European Alps. Many species dominate subalpine and alpine types of vegetation. Despite a long history of research on willows, the evolutionary and ecological factors for this species richness are poorly known. Here we will review recent progress in research on phylogenetic relation- ships, evolution, ecology, and speciation in alpine willows. Phylogenomic reconstructions suggest multiple colonization of the Alps, probably from the late Miocene onward, and reject hypotheses of a single radiation. Relatives occur in the Arctic and in temperate Eurasia. Most species are widespread in the European mountain systems or in the European lowlands. Within the Alps, species differ eco- logically according to different elevational zones and habitat preferences. Homoploid hybridization is a frequent process in willows and happens mostly after climatic fluctuations and secondary contact. Breakdown of the ecological crossing barriers of species is followed by introgressive hybridization. Polyploidy is an important speciation mechanism, as 40% of species are polyploid, including the four endemic species of the Alps. Phylogenomic data suggest an allopolyploid origin for all taxa analyzed Citation: Wagner, N.D.; He, L.; so far.
    [Show full text]
  • Responses of Black Willow (Salix Nigra) Cuttings to Simulated Herbivory and flooding
    Acta Oecologica 28 (2005) 173–180 www.elsevier.com/locate/actoec Original article Responses of black willow (Salix nigra) cuttings to simulated herbivory and flooding Shuwen Li a,*, Lili T. Martin a, S. Reza Pezeshki a, F. Douglas Shields Jr. b a Department of Biology, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA b USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655, USA Received 7 January 2004; accepted 31 March 2005 Available online 04 May 2005 Abstract Herbivory and flooding influence plant species composition and diversity in many wetland ecosystems. Black willow (Salix nigra) natu- rally occurs in floodplains and riparian zones of the southeastern United States. Cuttings from this species are used as a bioengineering tool for streambank stabilization and habitat rehabilitation. The present study was conducted to evaluate the photosynthetic and growth responses of black willow to simulated herbivory and flooding. Potted cuttings were subjected to three levels of single-event herbivory: no herbivory (control), light herbivory, and heavy herbivory; and three levels of flooding conditions: no flooding (control), continuous flooding, and peri- odic flooding. Results indicated that elevated stomatal conductance partially contributed to the increased net photosynthesis noted under both levels of herbivory on day 30. However, chlorophyll content was not responsible for the observed compensatory photosynthesis. Cuttings subjected to heavy herbivory accumulated the lowest biomass even though they had the highest height growth by the conclusion of the experiment. In addition, a reduction in root/shoot ratio was noted for plants subjected to continuous flooding with no herbivory. However, continuously flooded, lightly clipped plants allocated more resources to roots than shoots.
    [Show full text]
  • Salix × Meyeriana (= Salix Pentandra × S
    Phytotaxa 22: 57–60 (2011) ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) www.mapress.com/phytotaxa/ Correspondence PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2011 Magnolia Press ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) Salix × meyeriana (= Salix pentandra × S. euxina)―a forgotten willow in Eastern North America ALEXEY G. ZINOVJEV 9 Madison Ave., Randolph, MA 02368, USA; E-mail: [email protected] Salix pentandra L. is a boreal species native to Europe and western Siberia. In North America it is considered to have been introduced to about half of the US states (Argus 2007, 2010). In Massachusetts it is reported from nine of the fourteen counties (Sorrie & Somers 1999). Even though this plant may have been introduced to the US and Canada, its naturalization in North America appears to be quite improbable. Unlike willows from the related section Salix, in S. pentandra twigs are not easily broken off and their ability to root is very low, 0–15% (Belyaeva et al. 2006). It is possible to propagate S. pentandra from softwood cuttings (Belyaeva et al. 2006) and it can be cultivated in botanical gardens, however, vegetative reproduction of this species by natural means seems less likely. In North America this willow is known only by female (pistillate) plants (Argus 2010), so for this species, although setting fruit, sexual reproduction should be excluded. It is difficult to imagine that, under these circumstances, it could escape from cultivation. Therefore, most of the records for this willow in North America should be considered as collections from cultivated plants or misidentifications (Zinovjev 2008–2010). Salix pentandra is known to hybridize with willows of the related section Salix.
    [Show full text]
  • Salix Nigra Marsh
    Salix nigra Marsh Salix nigra Marsh. Black Willow Salicaceae -- Willow family J. A. Pitcher and J. S. McKnight Black willow (Salix nigra) is the largest and the only commercially important willow of about 90 species native to North America. It is more distinctly a tree throughout its range than any other native willow; 27 species attain tree size in only part of their range (3). Other names sometimes used are swamp willow, Goodding willow, southwestern black willow, Dudley willow, and sauz (Spanish). This short-lived, fast-growing tree reaches its maximum size and development in the lower Mississippi River Valley and bottom lands of the Gulf Coastal Plain (4). Stringent requirements of seed germination and seedling establishment limit black willow to wet soils near water courses (5), especially floodplains, where it often grows in pure stands. Black willow is used for a variety of wooden products and the tree, with its dense root system, is excellent for stabilizing eroding lands. Habitat Native Range Black willow is found throughout the Eastern United States and adjacent parts of Canada and Mexico. The range extends from southern New Brunswick and central Maine west in Quebec, southern Ontario, and central Michigan to southeastern Minnesota; south and west to the Rio Grande just below its confluence with the Pecos River; and east along the gulf coast, through the Florida panhandle and southern Georgia. Some authorities consider Salix gooddingii as a variety of S. nigra, which extends the range to the Western United States (3,9). http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/salix/nigra.htm (1 of 9)1/4/2009 4:08:21 PM Salix nigra Marsh -The native range of black willow.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Plant List Trees.XLS
    Lower Makefield Township Native Plant List* TREES LIGHT MOISTURE TYPE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME STREET SUN PART SHADE DRY MOIST WET TREE SHADE EVERGREEN Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar x x x x IIex opaca American Holly x x x x Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar x x x Picea glauca White Spruce x x x Picea pungens Blue Spruce x x x Pinus echinata Shortleaf Pine x x x Pinus resinosa Red Pine x x x Pinus rigida Pitch Pine x x Pinus strobus White Pine x x x Pinus virginiana Virginia Pine x x x Thuja occidentalis Eastern Arborvitae x x x x Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock xx x DECIDUOUS Acer rubrum Red Maple x x x x x x Acer saccharinum Silver Maple x x x x Acer saccharum Sugar Maple x x x x Asimina triloba Paw-Paw x x Betula lenta Sweet Birch x x x x Betula nigra River Birch x x x x Betula populifolia Gray Birch x x x x x Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam x x x (C. tomentosa) Carya alba Mockernut Hickory x x x x Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory x x x Carya glabra Pignut Hickory x x x x x Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory x x Castanea pumila Allegheny Chinkapin xx x Celtis occidentalis Hackberry x x x x x x Crataegus crus-galli Cockspur Hawthorn x x x x Crataegus viridis Green Hawthorn x x x x Diospyros virginiana Common Persimmon x x x x Fagus grandifolia American Beech x x x x PAGE 1 Exhibit 1 TREES (cont'd) LIGHT MOISTURE TYPE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME STREET SUN PART SHADE DRY MOIST WET TREE SHADE DECIDUOUS (cont'd) Fraxinus americana White Ash x x x x Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash x x x x x Gleditsia triacanthos v.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/702 ON THE COVER Duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia) at Ocmulgee National Monument. Photograph by: Sarah C. Heath, SECN Botanist. Vegetation Community Monitoring at Ocmulgee National Monument, 2011 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2014/702 Sarah Corbett Heath1 Michael W. Byrne2 1USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network Cumberland Island National Seashore 101 Wheeler Street Saint Marys, Georgia 31558 2USDI National Park Service Southeast Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network 135 Phoenix Road Athens, Georgia 30605 September 2014 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) Community Synopsis
    Irish Vegetation Classification (IVC) www.biodiversityireland.ie/ivc Community Synopsis Scientific name Salix cinerea – Urtica dioica woodland Common name Grey Willow – Common Nettle woodland Community code WL3D Vegetation This rather variable community comprises wet woodland dominated by Salix spp. There is usually a low canopy (mean canopy height = 12.4 m, n = 32) in which Fraxinus excelsior typically accompanies the willows while Alnus glutinosa and Acer pseudoplatanus are also frequent. In the diverse field layer Rubus fruticosus agg., Hedera helix, Filipendula ulmaria, Angelica sylvestris, Urtica dioica and Dryopteris dilatata are constants while frequently found plants include Ranunculus repens, Galium aparine, Cardamine flexuosa, Agrostis stolonifera, Carex remota, Galium palustre, Chrysosplenium oppositifolium and Mentha aquatica. The bryophyte layer is composed mostly of Kindbergia praelonga, Brachythecium rutabulum and Hypnum cupressiforme. Further variation is discussed under ‘Sub-communities’ below. Ecology This community mainly occurs on wet gley soils but also on basin peats and well-drained mineral soils (mean organic content = 40.5%, n = 33). It is found almost always on flat ground in the lowlands (mean slope = 0.5°, n = 33; mean altitude = 51 m, n = 33). Conditions are relatively base-rich and quite fertile. Sub-communities Two quite distinct sub-communities have been described for this community. The Salix fragilis – Calystegia sepium sub- community (WL3Di) differs chiefly in the presence of one or more species of willow that are regarded as archaeophytes in Ireland (Salix fragilis, Salix alba, Salix viminalis or Salix triandra), although Salix cinerea is still frequent. The field layer is usually a dense tangle including Calystegia sepium, Iris pseudacorus, Oenanthe crocata, Rumex sanguineus, Phalaris arundinacea, Valeriana officinalis and Solanum dulcamara.
    [Show full text]
  • AN AUTECOLOGICAL STUDY of SALIX NIGRA, ESPECIALLY FACTORS TJ:JAT MIGHT LIMIT ITS DISTRIBUTION Major Field: Botany and Plant Pathology
    AN AUTECOLOGICAL STUDY OF SALIX NIGRA, ESPECIALLY FACTORS THAT MIGHT LIMIT ITS DISTRIBUTION By Kenneth William ~cLeod 1 Bachelor of Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1969 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE July, 1971 AN AUTECOLOGICAL STUDY OF SALIX NIGRA, ESPECIALLY FACTORS THAT MIGHT LIMIT ITS DISTRIBUTION The~is Approved: ~~~­ Q~ - ACKNOWLEDGE$NTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my major adviser, Dr. James K. McPherson, under whose direction this study was conducted. His concern and suggestions for this study and manuscript are very much appreciated. I should also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. John E. Thomas and Dr. Eddie Basler, Jr. for their suggestions in the writ­ ing of this manuscript. Thanks are also due Dr. Robert Morrison for his work on the statistical evaluation, Dr. Glenn W. Todd for his help with the water relations work, Dr. Paul E. Richardson for his assist­ ance with the anatomical portions, Dr. James Davidson for his help with the soil testing, and Dr. Arthur G. Carroll for his faith in my work the past three years. Finally I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Miss Lyn Robinson, for her assistance and sacrifice the past two years. Also due many thanks are my many friends and fellow graduate students who gave of their time to assist me in this research. My family deserves much gratitude and thanks for their cheerful support and faith in me.
    [Show full text]